Lobbyists to be Barred from Advisory Panels
 

washingtonpost.com

This is the first really strong initiative by Obama to curb the influence of K Street in Washington. Strangely, it's not getting much air time....

Its a step in the right direction, but I don't know how effective it will be.

I have to wonder how long this policy will last after Obama leaves office.

It won't mean anything until earmarks are ended. They can sit out the advisory panels, but just strong-arm their pocketed congressman as it goes through the committees.

Earmarks are fine. Pork projects are not.

Earmarks are THE way pork projects occur.

Water is the way drownings occur. Ban water!

This has little or nothing to with earmarks.

The focus of these Executive branch advisory panels is primarily on recommendations for the regulations to implement programs AFTER legislation has been enacted.

Removing the direct lobbying influence in rule-making (writing regulations) is significant.

All pork projects are earmarks.

Not all earmarks are pork projects

Only term limits will curb the influence of lobbyists.

or magnify them

pork projects/earmarks are just like beauty. It's all in the eye of the beholder. in other words, one mans bridge to nowhere is another mans necessary infrastructure rebuilding.

a lot of it is pretty clear cut, though.

In my opinion, here's how it should work: The federal government has a budget for maintaining interstate commerce. This covers roads, airports, and shipping ports in the States. This money is divided amongst the states each year based on one of two ways:

1) Population (from census data)
2) Contribution to interstate commerce (perhaps the state's percentage of GDP)

Here's the kicker: "Do with it what you will, nothing more is coming." No earmarks, no pork. It is up to the state to prioritize what they do with their federal highway funds. You want a bridge to nowhere built? No, problem: use your highway funds. No special projects at all, period.

All of this...and the earmark/pork talk...have little or nothing to do with the new policy to bar lobbyists from federal advisory boards and councils, the impact of which is significant on the development of federal regulations (not legislation).

It would have been better to have it issued as an Executive Order, carrying the force of law (and requiring future presidents to formally rescind it through another EO) rather than through a Presidential Memorandum...but it is a big step to minimizing the impact of lobbyists.

---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

But.....if the interest is continuing with the earmark/pork discussion.....most of those have less to do with the influence of lobbyists and more to do with responding to constituents by funding projects in the home state/districts....some certainly worthy of federal funding and others not so much.

I dont think the lobbyists for the road builders association or the civil engineers association had much to do with the bridge to nowhere.